Coronavirus

[KEW]

Really: all we need to do is move to the British system where, by default, the loser in a civil case pays all of the costs for both sides.

I like the idea of that, but it still gives a tremendous advantage to corporations and wealthy individuals!
Any typical bloke will suffer greatly from the costs of a lawsuit, and assuming the wealthy party decides to prolong the lawsuit the results can ruin an individual's finances before they have any shot at the "big payout"!
Also consider how often a lawsuit would prevent an individual from moving forward with life!
That doesn't even consider that we live in a country where having high powered lawyers can win over justice.
The individual is "betting the farm" while a corporation is only betting a small portion of their net worth and can actually rack up additional costs for lawyers as a means to assure that the person is faced with total financial devastation!

For parties of equal wealth, it is a good option, but there needs to be some means of factoring in the comparative wealth of the parties so they both have comparable levels of "skin in the game"!

 

[JerryLove]

I like the idea of that, but it still gives a tremendous advantage to corporations and wealthy individuals!
Any typical bloke will suffer greatly from the costs of a lawsuit, and assuming the wealthy party decides to prolong the lawsuit the results can ruin an individual's finances before they have any shot at the "big payout"!

I don't believe it actually plays out that way in England (or other countries that use the same system).

Are large corporations suing typical blokes a problem now?

The individual is "betting the farm" while a corporation is only betting a small portion of their net worth and can actually rack up additional costs for lawyers as a means to assure that the person is faced with total financial devastation!

The lawyers suing large corporatins usually take the fiscal risk.

 

[Swerd]

This M-DNA technology has already been used successfully against MERS in the Middle East. We do know this technology works.

We already know that MERS and SARS-CoV-2 aren't the same viruses and don't produce the same disease. Knowing the technology of producing a vaccine that can work is not the same thing as knowing that the M-DNA technology results in immunity against SARS-CoV-2.

We will have to shorten the approval process, even if we have to lock up all the damn trial lawyers. The real question is will the vaccine have a net benefit? The MERS experience says almost certainly yes. We can not go futzing around worrying about lawyers for 18 to 24 months once a viable vaccine is identified. Just make it illegal to sue for any ill effects of the vaccine.

I don't think the drug company lawyers will be the main obstacle. Most clinical trails of much more toxic anti-cancer drugs do protect the medical personnel, institutions, and manufacturers from lawsuits concerning adverse events that take place as result of the clinical trial treatment. But, to be fair, they do not involve exposing patients to known disease causing pathogens.

In my opinion, it will be the conservative MDs in charge of the FDA and the individual hospital Institutional Review Boards of all participating medical institutions, who will be the biggest obstacles. They all must approve any trial protocol that shortens the approval process for a new vaccine.

Any vaccine trial will examine a population of healthy people from age 18 (perhaps lower?) to age 55. Usually a separate trial, or separate cohort, tests the vaccine in older people, such as ages 55-70. Statistically meaningful results require separating these age groups. On a practical level, it also takes longer to accrue patients in the older 55-70 age group.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that there is a highly motivated group of immunized people in the 18-55 age group who are willing to be challenged by infectious SARS-CoV-2 virus. And let's also assume that all legal obstacles for this live virus challenge are eliminated.

Will the ages of this highly motivated sub-group represent the ages of all people who were immunized? Or will they be skewed to the younger side, for example in the range of 18-35?

Will the results of the live virus challenge apply only to the younger 18-35 age group? Or will it apply to the full 18-55 age group of the trial? If the results only apply to the 18-35 group, how much longer will it take to establish vaccine efficacy for the entire 18-55 age group? I hope you see where I'm going. This scenario that I imagined, would take a lot longer than you think. There may be ways to write a vaccine protocol to deal with this potential obstacle. But it would require careful thought so that it actually results in vaccine trials that actually provide useful results.

Bottom line – challenging immunized patients with live virus may not be the short-cut that you hope it to be. The entire population of immunized patients has to be tested for efficacy, not just a highly motivated sub-group.

 

[Swerd]

I have now had a chance to look at that Chinese report and some others. It seem that the virus can kill vital T-lymphocytes. The most important word to translate for you in that report is the term cell apoptosis. That means programmed cell death. All cells have a means of becoming "suicidal" if you like. This is he mechanism by which sick, injured and otherwise damaged cells.

So an increased rate of apoptosis in these immune cells was noted. However the virus could not reproduce in these cells. So this is serious but not totally disastrous.

Apoptosis among T and B lymphocytes is also a way to slow down or shut down an immune response after it accomplishes its goal of stopping an infection. Earlier during infection, the immune system must rapidly amplify its responses, but once the infection is ended, there is no reason to maintain its mobilization. Most T and B cells are signaled to literally drop dead, while a few others become what is called memory cells that can be quickly activated if the infection returns.

 

[TLS Guy]

We already know that MERS and SARS-CoV-2 aren't the same viruses and don't produce the same disease. Knowing the technology of producing a vaccine that can work is not the same thing as knowing that the M-DNA technology results in immunity against SARS-CoV-2.
I don't think the drug company lawyers will be the main obstacle. Most clinical trails of much more toxic anti-cancer drugs do protect the medical personnel, institutions, and manufacturers from lawsuits concerning adverse events that take place as result of the clinical trial treatment. But, to be fair, they do not involve exposing patients to known disease causing pathogens.

In my opinion, it will be the conservative MDs in charge of the FDA and the individual hospital Institutional Review Boards of all participating medical institutions, who will be the biggest obstacles. They all must approve any trial protocol that shortens the approval process for a new vaccine.

Any vaccine trial will examine a population of healthy people from age 18 (perhaps lower?) to age 55. Usually a separate trial, or separate cohort, tests the vaccine in older people, such as ages 55-70. Statistically meaningful results require separating these age groups. On a practical level, it also takes longer to accrue patients in the older 55-70 age group.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that there is a highly motivated group of immunized people in the 18-55 age group who are willing to be challenged by infectious SARS-CoV-2 virus. And let's also assume that all legal obstacles for this live virus challenge are eliminated.

Will the ages of this highly motivated sub-group represent the ages of all people who were immunized? Or will they be skewed to the younger side, for example in the range of 18-35?

Will the results of the live virus challenge apply only to the younger 18-35 age group? Or will it apply to the full 18-55 age group of the trial? If the results only apply to the 18-35 group, how much longer will it take to establish vaccine efficacy for the entire 18-55 age group? I hope you see where I'm going. This scenario that I imagined, would take a lot longer than you think. There may be ways to write a vaccine protocol to deal with this potential obstacle. But it would require careful thought so that it actually results in vaccine trials that actually provide useful results.

Bottom line – challenging immunized patients with live virus may not be the short-cut that you hope it to be. The entire population of immunized patients has to be tested for efficacy, not just a highly motivated sub-group.

In normal times I would agree with you. However these are not normal times and we already have the worst recession since 1795. So risks will be taken. Even if we sent back to work everyone, you would still have so much disruption due to illness that there would be a very stunted recovery at best. Things will be disrupted until there is a vaccine. I can tell you if this vaccine stops people getting this virus and not getting ill from the vaccine, it will be rolled out fast.

I think the likely scenario is that in the next peak, we will have at least one likely candidate and probably more than one. If a sufficient number of people are injected with the vaccine or placebo, and there is a highly significant reduction in incidence over the placebo, then the vaccine will be rolled out pronto. If not in the US then the US will be the looser. The success with MERS is in my view a very good omen. So I do think there is far more chance than not there will be a large scale roll out before years end and we get on repairing the economic havoc this pandemic has caused.

Then we can attend to the matter of having the Chinese curtail their gastronomic and medicinal proclivities.

 

[KEW]

I don't believe it actually plays out that way in England (or other countries that use the same system).

Are large corporations suing typical blokes a problem now?

I hope you are right, I am envisioning our system with a "loser pays all" stipulation.
I was thinking of a typical bloke suing a corporation, not the other way around.

The lawyers suing large corporatins usually take the fiscal risk.

So the lawyers sponsor the lawsuit because they believe it is a winner?

Edit: this is getting too far off topic! if you have an important response make it and I will followup with you in PM's if I have something worth saying!

 

[Swerd]

For all those who wrongly persist in saying that Covid-19 is no worse than the seasonal flu, look at this graph. It shows the total deaths from all causes (solid black line), week by week from January 1, 2020 through April 4, 2020. The seasonal average deaths are shown as a dotted line, and the gray band on either side of the dotted line shows the normal ± range of those seasonal averages. The orange area shows excess deaths above what is historically expected. It deviates from the deaths earlier in 2020 and from the seasonal average by a large amount.

This orange area is further divided into two areas:

• Deaths due to Covid-19 (orange with diagonal lines)
• Excess deaths other than Covid-19 (solid orange).

Both are large deviations from the previous deaths in 2020 and from the seasonal average. The excess deaths other than Covid-19 strongly suggests that there are many more Covid-19 deaths than have been officially reported.

 

[Swerd]

In normal times I would agree with you. However these are not normal times and we already have the worst recession since 1795. So risks will be taken.

This is where you and I disagree.

The drug testing & approval system the US has is the most thorough and safest in the world. It may not be the fastest, but it is the most relied upon in the world. Deviating from tried & true methods, can lead to regrettable mistakes – mistakes that would require repeating clinical trials and wasting precious time.

The Clean Food and Drug Act is established federal law. No one, including a misguided president, can override or deviate from it. The alternative is many deaths due to inadequate testing. Imagine how many people might be embalming themselves with Lysol without these safeguards.

 

[Mr._Clark]

For all those who wrongly persist in saying that Covid-19 is no worse than the seasonal flu, look at this graph. It shows the total deaths from all causes (solid black line), week by week from January 1, 2020 through April 4, 2020. The seasonal average deaths are shown as a dotted line. The orange area shows excess deaths above what is historically expected. It deviates from the deaths earlier in 2020 and from the seasonal average by a large amount.

This orange area is further divided into two areas:

• Deaths due to Covid-19 (orange with diagonal lines)
• Excess deaths other than Covid-19 (solid orange).

Both are large deviations from the previous deaths in 2020 and from the seasonal average. The excess deaths other than Covid-19 strongly suggests that there are many more Covid-19 deaths than have been officially reported.

The graph for New York City is especially striking:

 

[Mr._Clark]

Here is a chart for the UK:

Coronavirus: How to understand the death toll

The rising number of coronavirus deaths is distressing. But what are the figures actually telling us?

www.bbc.com

 

[Mr._Clark]

The New York Times has more up to date charts which fortunately show a drop in deaths in NYC. However, it is still well above average.

The chart that surprises me is Sweden:

I would have thought Sweden would be worse given their relaxed (for lack of a better word) approach to the pandemic.

The Pandemic’s Hidden Toll: Half a Million Deaths (Published 2020)

Far more people died in 2020 during the pandemic than have been officially reported, a review of mortality data in 35 countries shows.

www.nytimes.com

 

[highfigh]

No, not at all. Your pool keeps shrinking with each group eliminated so the pool is nowhere near 320+ million now.

Foreign-born people were never allowed to be candidates for POTUS unless they were here for at least 14 years before the signing of the Declaration anyway, so that's a moot point, now. That hasn't made the pool smaller in any way. Considering the way history and civics are taught now, it will be a freaking miracle if they can find a candidate who knows anything about the country pre-1990 in 25 years.

 

[highfigh]

So if someone creates a "vaccine" our of, say, Tide Pods, hides that it's made of bleach, and fakes studies to show it's safe and effective when its neither? What then.

Really: all we need to do is move to the British system where, by default, the loser in a civil case pays all of the costs for both sides.

If it brings the end of frivolous lawsuits, that would be great.

My renter was stopped at a light, behind another car. The woman ahead moved forward and suddenly stopped, which didn't leave enough time for my renter to stop, so she nudged the other woman's car. The only damage to the cars were to the plastic bumper covers and neither air bag deployed. Fast forward about 6 months and my renter gets a letter stating that she was being sued for $990K. Right. That could happen.

 

[highfigh]

So the lawyers sponsor the lawsuit because they believe it is a winner?

They take the case on contingency, taking around 30% if they win and while they may ask for a small retainer, they accept the risk of losing if it has merit. I'm sure you have seen the class action lawsuit ads for lawyers on TV, right?

 

[highfigh]

The left has shifted to the right as well.

That's why we seem to perceive even moderate liberals as radical.

So, AOC and Bernie Sanders are moderate?

 

[JerryLove]

So, AOC and Bernie Sanders are moderate?

Moderate liberals (as opposed to centrists)? Yes.

If you want to see the left version of the people who want to outlaw all abortions, put the ten commandments on courthouses, allow religious tests in the public and private sector (think: allow government agents to refuse to marry a homosexual couple), pass laws outlawing homosexuality, etc; you'd be looking for a liberal that wanted ban meat, ban all firearms, outlaw animal testing, perhaps institute communism (which would indeed be radical left).

Instead we see people saying "we should regulate stuff, have a comprehensive social safety net, and progressive taxes" as "non-moderate". Even universal income, at this point, I'd not call more extreme than Social Security was.

 

[JerryLove]

Foreign-born people were never allowed to be candidates for POTUS unless they were here for at least 14 years before the signing of the Declaration anyway, so that's a moot point, now. That hasn't made the pool smaller in any way. Considering the way history and civics are taught now, it will be a freaking miracle if they can find a candidate who knows anything about the country pre-1990 in 25 years.

Sometimes we elect constitutional scholars, and sometimes we elect reality TV stars.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Foreign-born people were never allowed to be candidates for POTUS unless they were here for at least 14 years before the signing of the Declaration anyway, so that's a moot point, now. That hasn't made the pool smaller in any way. Considering the way history and civics are taught now, it will be a freaking miracle if they can find a candidate who knows anything about the country pre-1990 in 25 years.

Just responding to your post about having a candidate from the population of what was it 325 million above? After you subtract a whole bunch, it is far from a pool of 325 million, that is all it was. So, the pool is way less to pick from.

 

[panteragstk]

Moderate liberals (as opposed to centrists)? Yes.

If you want to see the left version of the people who want to outlaw all abortions, put the ten commandments on courthouses, allow religious tests in the public and private sector (think: allow government agents to refuse to marry a homosexual couple), pass laws outlawing homosexuality, etc; you'd be looking for a liberal that wanted ban meat, ban all firearms, outlaw animal testing, perhaps institute communism (which would indeed be radical left).

Instead we see people saying "we should regulate stuff, have a comprehensive social safety net, and progressive taxes" as "non-moderate". Even universal income, at this point, I'd not call more extreme than Social Security was.

Dude. These people 100% exist just like they do on the right, they just don't have a huge mouthpiece installed as president. We haven't seen the likes of a far leftist puppet like we have for the far right at the moment.

Bernie and AOC aren't moderate democrats at all, but they aren't all the way left.

 

[JerryLove]

Dude. These people 100% exist just like they do on the right, they just don't have a huge mouthpiece installed as president.

Yes. I agree. But they don't generally get elected to anything. They are fringe candidates and get treated as such. Perhaps the occasional SJW makes it in somewhere; but I can't think of an obvious example.

Bernie and AOC aren't moderate democrats at all, but they aren't all the way left.

OK. What is their "left percentage" and how did you derive that number.

We can "yes they are", "no they are not" forever. Do you have an argument in support?

Try a thought experiment. See how many degrees of seperation there are between the most radical republicans (Say Neo Nazis, the Clan, etc) and "mainstream" republicans.

Now do the same with democrats.

If you do that honestly: you'll see that "mainstream" on the DNC side is *way* more centrist/right than mainstream in the GOP is. This is why a moderate republican is to the left of mainstream republicans, but a moderate democrat is also to the left of a mainstream democrat.

If they come out for federal sovereignty: feel free to let me know and I might update my position.

Seriously: when did the idea that we shouldn't just let poor people die become "leftist"?